Abortion should be legal under some circumstances, i.e. if the girl is raped. It is argued that abortion should be legal for minors, only if they have consent from their parent or legal guardian. But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it? I do not believe they do. By controlling the reasons a woman can have an abortion the government is actually controlling the rest of her life for her. The choice to get an abortion can effect her education, her chance to be employed, and even her relationship with other people in her life. I do not believe that a government body (especially the masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her.

I accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate. I will be defending the view that abortion is wrong. I will begin by presenting a deductive logical argument against abortion before addressing my opponent's argument(s). I look forward to a good discussion!

Burden of Proof

This debate will have a shared burden of proof, with my opponent offering arguments in favor of the position that abortion should be legal and myself offering arguments in favor of the position that abortion should be illegal.

Argument Against Abortion

Premise 1: The killing of an innocent human is murder.Premise 2: A fetus is an innocent human.Conclusion: The killing of a fetus is murder.

In order to reject the conclusion that "the killing of a fetus is murder", my opponent must falsify at least one of the argument's premises. Until my opponent is able to accomplish this, the conclusion that "the killing of a fetus is murder" stands. If it's true that "the killing of a fetus is murder", then it's clear that abortion ought to be illegal.

As the first premise is fairly self-explanatory and uncontroversial, I will dedicate the majority of my time to defending the second premise, which states that "a fetus is an innocent human". The word fetus is a description of a particular human developmental stage. Such words commonly used to describe various stages of human life: fetus, infant, toddler, child, adolescent, adult, etc. It would be absurd to say something along the lines of, "that's not a human being, that's a toddler!" It's evident that toddlers are of the species homo sapien. In the very same way, it is evident that fetuses inside of a homo sapien womb are homo sapien fetuses. It'd be very strange indeed if a homo sapien male and a homo sapien female mated to produce offspring of some other species. So, I think it's as clear as night and day that a fetus is a human, regardless of developmental stage, geographic location, etc. But if it's true that a fetus is a human (an innocent one), then it follows from the deductive argument that the killing of a fetus (abortion) is murder.

Rebuttal

"Abortion should be legal under some circumstances, i.e. if the girl is raped."

Does being the victim of one crime provide justification for being the culprit of another? If a stranger came to my house and beat me unconscious, would that then give me the right to go to my neighbor's house, who had nothing to do with the situation, and beat their child unconscious? Certainly not. In the same way, if a woman is raped it does not provide her with justification for killing another innocent human.

"But does the government have the right to control what a girl does to her own body? Does the government have jurisdiction over any person's own body and what happens to it?"

You seem to be implicitly suggesting that there is only one human being (namely the woman) involved in these cases. This is not the case. It may or may not be right for the government to tell you what you can and can't do with your own body, but it is certainly within the jurisdiction of the government to step in when you attempt to take the life of another human being.

"By controlling the reasons a woman can have an abortion the government is actually controlling the rest of her life for her."

This is obviously false. Pregnancies are about 40 weeks long, and the average lifespan is somewhere on the upper side of eighty years. However, even if it did "control the rest of her life" it still wouldn't justify the alternative of murder.

"I do not believe that a government body (especially the masculine) has any right to decide a woman's life for her."

Perhaps there's some room for common ground here. I too believe that the government shouldn't have the right to decide the life or death of the woman. However, in the same way, I also believe that the woman shouldn't have the right to decide the life or death of the child. I fail to see how you use one line of reasoning in the case of the woman but then abandon that same reasoning when the child is being considered.

Summary

Through a deductive logical argument, I have shown that abortion is murder. I await my opponent's response to this argument. Thus far, my opponent has used faulty reasoning which I have adequately refuted. As it stands, it seems to me that abortion is the killing of an innocent human and as such is murder.Thank you.